Best
514 Comments
Post
  • #8
    !
    A food products use of red food coloring is also inconsequential as far as ones heath goes, yet they put it on the label.

    If food companies have nothing to hide, they should have no problem with labeling that their food is GMO food.
  • #70
    !
    So are you willing to pay 10% more for your food to cover the costs of GMO specific labeling? I find it very disingenuous that those calling for GMO labels will not also tell the public about the costs of such labeling.
  • #74
    !
    @RobertWager1 - False premise. GMO labeling will not increase the costs unless the corporation selling the food item is extraordinarily greedy. They have to print new labels daily, so adding one item to an existing label will take a few keystrokes on a computer, and the printing mechanisms will do the rest. If they raise their prices because of this law, I'd boycott their products.
  • #75
    !
    @RobertWager1 Where did you get the 10% figure? Why does it cost 10% more to add "GMO" or "Non-GMO" right beneath the Nutrition Information? Or on a Chiquita sticker?
  • #81
    !
    @Denizen_Kate actually properly labeling them would be very difficult and expensive. Just saying they have GMO products in them doesn't tell you anything. To do it properly would require tracking down each ingredient and explaining how they were genetically altered. That's where the added costs would come from I really think this is an overblown issue.
    What would drastically increase food costs would be if GMOs were banned.
  • #83
    !
    @HoraceGreely - All consumers are asking for is "Contains GMOs" or "Non-GMO" with MAYBE a code for online lookup purposes. The details can be researched by those who feel the need for more information.
  • R Load more replies

  • #7
    !
    People have been genetically modifying organisms a lot longer than we've had agriculture. Your dog is probably GMO, although some breeds may have GMO'd themselves. Even scarier, we've been genetically modifying ourselves longer than we've been human. So embrace change, you mutants.
  • #15
    !
    I agree. Everything we eat is has been genetically modified ever since farmers selectively bred plant and livestock. But, if done on this large factory scale 1990's e kind of GMO most are talking about. I could see how things might be a little bit different... and if the public elects to know whether their food has been genetically modified by that definition, the companies have to put the labels on. Democracy. And if there is nothing wrong with these modern GMO's, then the suppliers should have no worries.

    They should definitely educate the public as to why the EU was wrong in their studies that led to banning GMO's.
  • #68
    !
    @thismonkey It would appear you missed the announcement the EU High Court of Justice struck down the ban for lack of evidence of harm to humans or the environment. Guess the anti-GMO sites forgot to mention this fact.
  • #84
    !
    @Denizen_Kate Please explain how changing the DNA with one method is not the same as changing the DNA with another method. In all cases we changed the DNA of our food. We call it agriculture. The distinction with GE breeding is it is the most precise method we have ever used to change the DNA.
  • R Load more replies

  • #58
    !
    Anyone who is concerned about GMO's in their food have other options. Farmer's markets, growing your own "heirloom" varieties, etc. I'm not a big fan of GMO's, but not because of health issues. My concern with GMO's lies with the idea that our food supply can be patented by someone.
  • #203
    !
    What about the tons of oil based chemicals they are pumping into those foods since they've been modified to withstand over fertilization? What bout the tons of RoundUp used since they can now withstand it?

    To put it another way, if you were going to a friends house for dinner, saw that they were spraying their entire vegetable garden with RoundUp and other unknown chemicals and then came out w/ a salad 'fresh from the garden', would you not be at least a little concerned about what you might be consuming?
  • #230
    !
    @AceLuby Well, my friends would wash their food before they prepare it. But otherwise, no, I wouldn't be concerned. I understand the science. And so would my friends.
  • #243
    !
    @AceLuby What about it? Again, if you don't like it, go to the farmer's market or grow your own. No one is forcing anyone to buy their fruits and veggies from the national grocery chains.

    I use Roundup in MY yard to kill goatheads, noxious weeks, and other plants I don't want growing anymore. I've been to the co-operative extension classes on that stuff..they way it works systemically within a plant is completely harmless to humans, and it has no soil activity, so once it's in the dirt it's done. Fact is, it's essentially non-toxic to humans. You can drink the stuff and will only maybe have some gastric upset...a sore tum-tum. Not that I would ever recommend it.

    What piqued my interest this year was finding out that the alfalfa we're buying to feed our horses is genetically modified to be IMMUNE to RoundUp. If you plant the GMO "RoundUp Ready" alfalfa, you can spray the entire field with RoundUp, and the only thing that WILL live is the Alfalfa. Guess they've had "RoundUp Ready" corn for several years now.

    It sure is good looking, weed free alfalfa. And I've bought some crap hay around here.

    The big concern is not with the RoundUp itself, but that there have always been a few species of weeds that have been immune to it, and in certain parts of the country, the use of RoundUp has left behind an environment where those immune species can thrive..so they are taking over. My guess is that Monsanto and all them are working on that issue as I type this.

    My main concern is still the patenting of our food supply. If you plant fruits and veggies, plant "heirloom" species so you can let a few things "go to seed" and maintain your own supply.
  • #244
    !
    @captainentropy I'm pretty much with you on this. Despite all the caterwauling over GMO food, we're still living longer, healthier lives. So I can't say I see any statistics that cause me concern.
  • #252
    !
    @CaryNickel You hit the nail on the head:
    "The big concern is not with the RoundUp itself, but that there have always been a few species of weeds that have been immune to it."

    To me that's the only problem with GMO is it encourages the overuse of herbicides and pesticides. But that's just a use-management issue. GMOs themselves have no negative impact on human health.

    I'm not too concerned about the patenting thing because time and effort went into the development of those strains. They didn't exist in nature as such. So I see them as fair to patent. Same goes for animals. But you couldn't for example patent the genes of the organism unless they themselves were engineered.

    Heirlooms veggies are the best! If I had room I'd be growing everything I could.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    Picking the seeds from naturally occurring plants that happened thousands of years ago is way different than what started twenty years ago using chemicals and needles and whatever else. I'm not taking a hard line stance on whether gmo food is good or not but comparing the two is a deliberately misleading.
  • #29
    !
    Not to mention that fact that since Clarence Thomas' glorious ruling, farmers can't save seeds anyway. It's frigging illegal, which is about a ridiculous a notion as humanly possible.
  • #56
    !
    @Firestorm I wish I could explain it better but it's not all bad. I'm not sure where the fear is coming from. I think it's more from not understanding it than anything.
  • #66
    !
    @Firestorm why do you say Clarence Thomas' ruling. that was a unanimous supreme court ruling. And if you read the ruling that only applied to Monsanto GMO seeds not all seeds.
  • #76
    !
    @Firestorm - She works for the Ayn Rand Institute.

    She is a scientist, but not agriculturally speaking. However, she does have a point: we've been consuming GMOs for nearly two decades now, and I've yet to see any evidence of harm to humans.(There is that bit about the bees they keep near GMO crops dying en masse, though.)

    I'm keeping an open mind (although personally, I eat almost exclusively organic these days), but I don't see why they are so unwilling to label these foods.
  • R Load more replies

  • #356
    !
    The problem is that it would be difficult to know which foods contain gmo crops which would require expenses to keep separate.
  • #178
    !
    Want to see and eye opening expose' on the Monsanto protection act?
    &li st=PLI46g-I12_9oaCLOtvVdwvStff g6LUE-H
    "Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world." - Henry Kissenger
    Codex Alimentarius (book of food ) Is nothing but a way to control the people and reduce the population. http://www.youtube.com/watch...
    We are killing ourselves letting Monsanto control the food supply. The Elite know this, that why a lot Monsanto's scientists will not eat it and demanded organic in their cafeteria. They also have a seed project that takes all organic seeds and is storing it in the arctic "Doomsday Seed Vault" to save humanity (tiny elite). This is damning because they will not store GMO seeds.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/doomsday-seed-va...
  • #71
    !
    How many people opposed to GE crops know of these statements from the European national Academies of science 2013 report-Planting the Future:

    "There is abundant and accumulating evidence from extensive worldwide experience for benefit, and lack of evidence for environmental or human health risk associated with GM crop technology."

    "There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy."

    "It is vital that sustainable agricultural production and food security harnesses the potential of biotechnology in all its facets."
  • #67
    !
    None of this will make any difference.

    It's all one big scam to part the fools from the money.

    The big corporations will continue to lie about what's actually in their product and the hippies will continue to fleece to flock who have more money than brains.

    My family has been in the agricultural industry for more than 100 years and what has gone on and what is going on is quite disturbing and no one is none the wiser!

    I've seen Certified Organic farmers spraying chemicals on their crops (just like everyone else)!

    I've seen companies who claim their product is Organic Certified buy product off the open market!

    I've seen crops grown across the border labelled "Grown in the USA" because it was processed inside the USA!

    I've seen commodities manipulated by large corporations with help from the government to drive food prices up!

    Want to eat healthy .... grow your own food and don't believe a damn thing you read on products because 99% of it is a pack of lies!
  • #302
    !
    @captainentropy It is better than GMO. With GMOs, you are guaranteed a mouthful of Roundup (or Liberty Link). Ew.
  • #361
    !
    Must be difficult if the 80% figure the article states is true. Also how do you avoid gmo food? I hope you don't just trust the word of corporations.
  • #393
    !
    @DarylL I have my own garden, shop locally, and ask questions of the grocers that claim non-gmo food. Sure, I might not get it right for my own preferences; but, it isn't for the lack of trying.
  • #180
    !
    Monsanto's BT corn is labeled an insecticide and regulated a such by the EPA. Think about that, a food plant labeled an insecticide. Bon appetit !
  • #196
    !
    You're a little off your facts. The protein expressed in Bt corn is a protein taken from bacteria, and it is insecticidal but has not been demonstrated to have any negative effects on mammals after more than 40 years of testing. So, you don't have to spray chemical pesticides (which cause most harm to the farmers and young children), it's mostly/all expressed in the green tissues (not the corn), so what's not to like???
  • #269
    !
    Let's not play semantics here please. Yes I realize it's a bacteria used for an insecticide, but it's still an insecticide. Think about what you're saying. They've eliminated the need to spray, but engineered the toxin into the food itself. Pests eat it and their organs shut down. Barring the lack of long term human testing, what do you think that would do to the human system? The testing Monsanto has done I suspect is like all drugs tested by the FDA. They play down any symptoms or side effects as anecdotal. There are other studies being done to show the contrary (no surprise) to the industries results. How many years were we fighting the tobacco industry who had an army of doctors testifying that tobacco had no connection to cancer and other lung ailments? That's what is happening here.
  • #275
    !
    @SmedleyButler Actually SmedleyButler, it is a bacteria gene that is engineered into the food that produces a protein that is insecticidal, but more than 40 years of safety testing (but many, many different researchers) indicates that is does not harm mammals. Why do you think that organic farmers used Bt? It's no different. They sprayed it on their plants to target the insects because it was so safe and effective, and now it is just expressed in the plant, mostly in the green tissues so you do not eat it. Don't be so distrustful of technology, but do educate yourself so you will not be fooled by junk science. Trying to relate this to fighting the tobacco industry makes no sense. Nicotine has been demonstrated by science to be harmful to people; Bt has been demonstrated by science to be harmful ONLY to insects.
  • #52
    !
    Question for the author, Did Agribusiness write this article for you? I can hardly imagine a more one sided argument and I only have issues with some gene splicing for example combining species vs working within the confines of one species. The concept of combining a plant with a toxic component to protect from pests or various molds or other organisms also is an issue to me. Why would anyone who is honest argue against the light of day?
  • #249
    !
    Not necessarily. Note that I said i only have issues with some GMO's. It would depend on what the details of the project were, do you have an example? I like the concept but the means justify's the end. By the way there are also many ways to reduce water usage that don't involve GMO's. My family organically farms in Baja and is very good and they are using very little water to grow over 90 varieties of vegetables, the biggest problem they had was the first round of hay they used to fill the depressed crop rows was treated with glycophospate and it inhibited the growth of some of the crops. They now have someone growing a non gmo hay that is not treated with glycophosphate. see http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/nco... I don't know if claims of GMO strains of hay are real or paranoid but I have seen 1st hand the problems with weed killer residue.
  • #303
    !
    @cujo Any drought tolerance comes from good old hybrids, not the GMO component. As a matter of fact, the GMO modification in the gene causes the plant to consume MORE water, not less. That is the ugly truth. google the study by Zobiole.
  • #358
    !
    @kathalina Whoops didn't mean to vote you up. Anyway how would changes to DNA necessarily cause an increase in water consumption looking for the study you mentioned it doesn't seem to be about water in fact it seems to be about herbicides.
  • #359
    !
    @DarylL the study proves that the Roundup Ready gene takes energy to constantly be switched "on"- farmers I know who have planted GMO next to non- GMO versions of the same hybrid of corn had to pay more after harvest because the corn had to be "dried down" prior to being sold- and that costs them money. Problem is- industry prevents that sort of side by side comparison by farmers now. I think they can sue them over it if the farmer has ever signed a contract. Of course, wouldn't you if you wanted to hide lower yield and higher water content? Anyway- I have the study in PDF format- will try to post in a bit. Did you know that no one is allowed to study the GMOs without industry's permission? They block negative studies of any kind. That's why any negative studies come from abroad- where scientists' careers may be a bit more out of reach by industry thugs. It's still dicey for them to speak out. They crushed Puzstai. Are you aware of any of this?
  • R Load more replies

  • #437
    !
    Wow, this article is so amazingly WRONG! The way GMO is done these days is drastically different from seed selections. The nucleus is blasted, with DNA fragmented. Has the author heard of epigenetics? Scientists found out that the so-called junk DNA is actually not junk, but crucial as switches. Such blasting of nucleus can have grave consequences to us who eat the food. And that may not show up in you or your kids, but your grandkids!
  • #256
    !
    Will the labels point out that humans have been "genetically modifying" foods for centuries?

    FALSE. There is a substantial difference between selective breeding and genetic modification involving 2 or more species that can not breed naturally.

    That's as far as I got before I realized this is just another pro- Monsanto propaganda piece. Do your due diligence.
  • #245
    !
    Here's the problem: "Today, scientists are using their understanding of genetics to make small and targeted improvements to the foods we eat." Using their understanding! Most scientists have gotten most of our medical knowledge wrong. Eat butter, don't eat butter, eat margarine...oops! Don't eat hydrogenated fats....wait maybe there is a place for these too.

    It's not playing God that bothers me. It's that they don't know enough to know what long term problems they could be creating and while it may seem innocuous today it might not be in 30 years. And comparing cross-breeding to genetically modifying is a very very different process.
  • #363
    !
    If it would be bad in 30 years why wouldn't it be in the many decades it has been done for? Additionally how is there a difference between genetically selecting by artificial selection and genetically altering by more efficient processes? Both are artificial just one is more efficient.
  • #403
    !
    it just a saying. And just to reiterate my point they don't know what they don't know and while they might think they know enough to do these things it's always many years later when the damage occurs like asbestos.
  • #232
    !
    You shills just don't get it.

    The GM Labels tell us whether there are GM ingredients-in part or whole within the product.

    There's no "cost issue"[the same companies doing the loudest whining put those labels on the same products they ship to the 64+ more honest countries that require it already.], there's a difference of opinion on the "science", but what this has ALWAYS been about is "We The People's" right to know what we're paying for. Noting the Crops, the Crop Insurance, and the Investors and Manufacturers all enjoy subsidies and heady tax breaks-when they even PAY taxes, this also shows us who's been "double-dipping" all along.

    We're on to this, we're not buying into the Corporately supported demonification of Anti-GM Activists, and we already know which products are the likely suspects-we're not stupid.

    So can the crap, label the products, and do what you do with pride, or if THAT'S not possible, stop doing it altogether.
  • #364
    !
    There is no cost issue? then how do you plan to tell the difference? At the moment all similar crops are put together but additional expenses would be required to separate them and keep them separated and who do you think will be made to pay for these costs? Do you think the businesses will take on the additional cost? Or do you realise that the consumer would be made to pay the vast expenses necessary.
  • #189
    !
    First and foremost, we must demand truth in labeling of our foods! Period! Second, GMO isn't as simple as grafting a peach with a plum and getting a nectarine. GMO foods are bred with the poison in Round Up, so the plants can withstand the farmers spraying the weeds around those crops with Round Up. So you are getting a double dose of poison, first what is being bred into the plant and then what the plant uptakes from what is being sprayed around them. Now the farmers are finding they have super weeds, and even Round Up won't kill them. Now Monsanto is using the poison in Agent Orange. GMO foods are VERY dangerous, and now they are starting to link these foods with autism, asthma, and other illnesses. Many countries have banned anything GMO, and there is a reason for it. Don't be fooled... and don't think its a part of "progress". Our country is allowing Monsanto, Cargill and others to use us as experiments, as we are their "last hope" for profits. And that my friends is what its all about.... GREED and PROFITS.
  • #438
    !
    @DarylL - actually we are just seeing the effects of GMO foods. It was developed in the 1970s, so yes, enough time to see what they do. Seems to me there was a time they also said cigarettes were good for you too, now look. But that's ok..... you just keep believing the way you do and eating that crap..... then at least there will be more of the good foods for the people that know better.
  • #443
    !
    @tulmon Indeed plenty of time and many studies showing a lack of harm and every study that purports to show harm has been found to contain methodological flaws. When "they" said cigarettes were good? Who is this "they" because it wasn't the scientific community who were still studying it. Well as much as I like it's benefits the EU enjoys fear mongers. By the way about 60-80% of food has gmo crops in.
  • #445
    !
    @DarylL - the scientific studies are now showing illnesses, etc that are related to GMO foods, i.e. autism, asthma, allergies, hypertension, infertility, etc... and the list goes on. And yes indeed, probably more than 60-80% of foods are made from GMO crops.... mostly processed foods. Corn (high fructose corn syrup, et al), soy, beets (beet sugar), cottonseed, canola.... and the list goes on and on. Its not fear mongering.... its reality!!!! I suppose its ok that you eat round up? You know... poison? And now because the farmers have super weeds from the round up (not only used in seed mfg, but sprayed around the crops), they are starting to use Agent Orange. Sound appetizing? But that's ok my friend.... there is not that much really good food to go around, so keep on eating your GMO foods..... kind of a natural selection, don't you think.
  • #450
    !
    @tulmon This looks at 24 long term studies:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
    'We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed.'
    you vs. reality.
  • #171
    !
    "we've been cross breeding for centuries" Blah, blah blah. Yeah, cross breeding eatable foods with other eatable from the same species. GMO takes genes from normally non compatible Non-eatable plant species that create a natural insecticide and splice it into the genes of the food supply. This would not happen naturally even if you tried to breed it for a thousand years. These toxins destroy the organs of the insects (good and bad insects) who eat very little of it. What do you think it does to a human who eats copious amounts of it, like corn and soy? Those plant products are in everything even in our meat and, I know small cattle breeders who swear the GMO feed is damaging their stock's organs and require a lot of drugs to counter it. These breeders I know have switched to grass fed only and the problems have stopped. Thank god I moved away from the big city to a rural farming area to wake me up.
    The most evil of this, is how Monsanto takes farmers to court that have had the misfortune of GMO seed that blows into their organic non-GMO farms and destroy their businesses, put a lean on their farms and foreclose. Monsanto is even worse than al qaeda IMO.
  • #175
    !
    You wouldn't be able to source an actual case to prove your claim could you?
    I kinda know about a case Monsanto won in Canada where the farmer rightfully lost his case.
    How about an actual (real) scientific organ study on humans who've eaten copius amounts of gmo?

    There's so much wrong in what you claim I have to ask for you to source with some degree of integrity.

    Please...
  • #187
    !
    There many cases out there all you have to do is search it. Sorry, but I don't waste time trying to cite stuff that just gets dismissed because it's not deemed credible by someone's bias.
    There are no industry studies on humans, just on Rats. Just like vaccines, the government doesn't require safety testing on humans.
    Monsanto's BT corn (a food plant) regulated as an insecticide.
    "Scientists from the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, proved the validity of these concerns when they detected the insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, circulating in the blood of both pregnant and non-pregnant women. They also detected the toxin in fetal blood, suggesting that the toxin can be passed on to the fetus. The research paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive Toxicology."
    http://foodintegritynow.org/2011/05/19/gmo-st...
  • #276
    !
    @SmedleyButler Well, I can dispute you on this too. Bt is everywhere. It is a common soil bacterium. You eat this inadvertently just like you eat lots of bacteria that is not completely washed off of your food. I went to this website you've been citing. Please realize that this is not a scientific organization, it is an activist group that gets money by inciting people with junk science. But, I pulled this article and read it (didn't find it on your link). These authors use a technique called an ELISA (I have used this product, so I'm familiar with it) to measure the amount of Bt protein in the blood of pregnant women. Why would they do this if they didn't have an agenda? But, regardless, the entire study is flawed. First, this ELISA product is optimized for corn, not blood serum. Proper controls were not used. But, the basic premise that the protein in Bt corn is not digested (which all studies show that is completely digested in gastric juices) and then can get through all of the barriers to get into the blood (it is just too large a protein to do this) is scientifically flawed. Scientists are harshly reviewing this research article, which is what scientists do when someone is able to get such a flawed study published. The problem is that websites like the one that you cite will pick it up and run with it to bring in lots and lots of $$, and they will celebrate these scientists as heroes, when their peers will stop funding such poorly conducted research.
  • #278
    !
    @Polno Dude, I've listened to industry science when it was pushing GMO's in the 80's When all these scientists ,doctors, farmers and parents speak out about symptoms that point to the GMOs and pesticides, the same thing that happened with big tobacco and their denial to cancer and health problems is happening here IMO.
  • #281
    !
    You're listening to a small (vocal) subset. The majority of farmers love this technology and have embraced it because it lowers their costs and reduces exposure to harmful spray pesticides-why else would it be so successful? Farmers are pretty smart businessmen/women. The VAST majority of scientists believe that this technology is necessary to feed an every increasing population (I'm a scientist, and I keep up to date on the scientific literature). I don't know about doctors, and parents are being fed so much information they don't know what to choose. I'm saying that if you insist on labeling YOU should pay for it, not me. Just label everything that is organic (already done) and only buy those things that are voluntarily labeled, and stop trying to legislate something that has no scientific basis. Then, we're good! You can believe what you want.
  • R Load more replies

  • #145
    !
    "Varieties of corn and cotton resistant to insects can be protected with fewer pesticides. Papayas and squash inoculated against nasty plant viruses don't get sick and rot on the branch."

    It's not always about the alleged health issues surrounding GMOs. Nature has a way of ensuring the survival of its citizens. Our use of antibacterials and antibiotics have helped to create resistant strains that can't be treated. Pesticides have forced insects to develop their own degrees of resistance. In time, the insects, bacterias, viruses and fungi will find something useful in the plant material and then what kind of manipulation will it take?
  • #305
    !
    You are right about pesticide and weed resistance being a gigantic problem with GMOs.
    It is JUST A LIE that pesticide use is down. Roundup/Glyphosate use has EXPLODED as a direct result of GMO farming. Look up Charles Benbrooks WSU studies. Sheesh. Lies. Lies. Lies. Massive increase!! And they don't count the insecticide because it is INSIDE OF THE PLANTS. The plants ARE the insecticide. Thousands of acres of planted insecticide. But pesticide use is down. Yeah, right. Yum :(
  • R Load more comments...
Post